You are hereBlogs / BillyClub's blog / A Slideshow of 19 photos of a Theatre Parody: RE, "Peace Charade" at the White House

A Slideshow of 19 photos of a Theatre Parody: RE, "Peace Charade" at the White House

By BillyClub - Posted on 01 September 2010

On September 1, 2010, at noon, in front of the White House, Human Rights activists staged a “peace charade” skit. Its purpose was, according to their press release, to serve as a theatre parody of the “farce masquerading as [Mideast] peace talks,” currently being conducted by the U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, Palestine’s Mahmoud Abbas and Israel’s “Bibi” Netanyahu. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODEPINK, was the leader of the demonstration.

The Presidents speech on Aug 31 was another slap in the face of the anti-war/peace activists; he now should be impeached.

In the first ten minutes he congratulated the war criminal Bush, he talked about peace in the middle East without having the key players at the table; it was and is a joke without humor.

It would seem the big difference between Obama and Bush is the ability to put a sentence together; they are brothers in blood.

Within the first 15 minutes he did connect the dots involving the war and our economic mess, most citizens will not even know what he is talking about; not much for us progressives.

Obama continues to call for cooperation, working together etc etc---the conservatives, GOP are screwing him every day and he wants to continue to be nice, nice.

He used his record on veterans affairs to build some kind of cooperation, there are veterans on the streets of Portland sitting on the curb because they can no longer sit next to a building. Reports that I have read say about 25% of people on the streets are veterans and that will increase.

He talked about the American soldiers who have given their lives for this immoral occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; what about the people of Iraq and Afghanistan Mr. President? We have/are murdering, torturing and made millions homeless in and outside their own land . Iraq is our shame, not our victory!

If we were a land of laws, President Obama would be impeached, President Bush would be arrested with his dick. Judge Jay Bybee, John Yoo, and many more of the architects of the wars/occupations would be serving life sentences; but alas we are not a land of laws, we are a place of the buck. All our institutions are in peril and I fear we have gone off the cliff and it is now just a matter of how damaged we will be when we hit bottom---very hard!

This speech to the nation was a terrible presentation of who we are trying to be, I am so disappointed and angry by President Obama.

If we were a land of laws, President Obama would be impeached, President Bush would be arrested with his dick.

Obama is not really less guilty, so he should be impeached, alright, but then also prosecuted, along with Bush Jr, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others from both administrations, as well as U.S. military commanders. "Let's party", real-time. The more that or who can be rounded up for prosecutions from these war and political criminals, the better. Obama does not deserve any better treatment.

Quote: "we are a place of the buck".

Well, it used to be said that the buck stopped at the President, in terms of the need for accountability, that is. But neither Bush Jr nor Obama, or Clinton, or Reagan, et cetera, were real Presidents, so it'd be odd for the buck to end with or at them. Real ones get assassinated and we need to "nail" the real "leaders" or "masters".

Quote: "All our institutions are in peril ..."

Most of them are complicit. The or a problem is the population not realizing this. Otherwise, long-genocidal US has no institutions really worthy of note. The little good there is can be found in other countries and regions, and when it comes to truthful and beneficial knowledge, then there should never be any political or corporate, or geographical boundaries.

Quote: "This speech to the nation was a terrible presentation of who we are trying to be, ..."

For that, we each have to speak for ourselves, [individually]. I can't speak for other Americans, most of whom have been, tragically and obsessedly, against good third-party candidates, always claiming their so-called candidates were of "lesser evil"; without being able to provide any evidence for "lesser". The evil was obvious, but the "lesser" wasn't, and these lazy and negligent voters only pretended that "lesser" was real. They only[pretended] this, for I challenged them to provide supporting evidence, and [none] of them could do this! That's awfully unconstitutional conduct, but these voters didn't care. And, worse, they have repeatedly done this! It was not just a once-in-a-lifetime mistake.

Disappointed in Obama?

You have no need to be disappointed about Obama. As many of us warned during the 2008 campaigns, neither he, nor Clinton or McCain were acceptable candidates; all were easily and quickly disqualified, provably. Many Obama supporters claimed that he opposed war on Iraq, while forgetting his years in the Senate. I critically attacked the latter denial and asked some of these citizens to provide quotes of what he had said in 2002. No one wanted to do that; none of his fan club supporters, that is. They would provide no links to either videos of him speaking in 2002, nor any sources that quoted his words. And that's awfully odd about someone who was being treated in a quasi-messianic way. But I finally came across quotes or transcripts of what Obama had said and it clearly enough was not really opposition to war. It was much like with John Kerry's complaints, which were only about how the criminal war was conducted; not the fact that it was criminal altogether, which it was and always will be.

Neither Kerry nor Obama took an anti-crime and -war position. They only differed from the Bush Jr administration in terms of how the crime should be committed. They agreed with the crime and only expressed disagreement with how it should be committed. That might be considerably appreciable when speaking of minor crimes, but definitely NOT when speaking of supreme international or national crimes!

That's clear enough when we learn what Obama did say in 2002, and like I posted several times, he also was speaking as a political [opportunist]; trying to drive popular political support among voters so that he'd gain more votes for himself. He did not speak, then or since, with any really noteworthy and sincere morality.

While far from unique in politics, it nevertheless is a very ancient and primitive game that he played and continues to play, and he succeeded in fooling many primitively-minded voters. Throughout human history, if we have some real knowledge of it, which is all I have of it, some, we can see that he and his handlers or masters are really playing a very old, ancient game. But sound common sense is also enough. If we have that, then there's really very little history we need to know about in order to be able to see that our so-called political leadership indeed is of organized crime.

It is not tightly organized. The organization can be and actually is rather loosely formed. Far from everyone involved is fully informed; but then that's also true of any large organized crime group. Only a [small] group of oligarchs is fully informed. The ruling elites don't only want to deceive or mislead the general public. The deceit is broader and politicians, judges, and so on, accept to be bought, bribed; and the bribes vary in form. Large donations to political campaigns and secret offers of more money after political posts have been performed are one form of bribe.

The ruling elites of a government as corrupt and criminal as the one in the US has long been would not accept Obama if he was an honest candidate. The ruling elites don't accept to be strongly challenged. They can let Ralph Nader, f.e., run without interferring, say, with his electoral campaigns, because the elites know most voters vote for candidates of the two main parties and that Nader will not have a real chance of being elected. But these elites will arrange for no real challenger to win. Ralph Nader has been a real candidate, but the ruling elites know that relatively few voters back him.

When it comes to candidates of the two main parties, then the ruling elites work to get one of their puppets elected; and these elites have means.

The US, so far, does not have a real democracy. It exists in law on [paper], but people also wipe their rears with paper that then winds up in sewers or else buried.

With that said, however, I am also disappointed, because we and the rest of humaniy [need] a real president in the US. Such a person might not live for long, if elected, but we need real leadership people and if one was elected to the presidency, then he or she, and we, would need to work to try to ensure that person's security.

Treason is predominant and it certainly would not be easy to ensure security for a good, real president, though.

"War is a Racket" and when speaking of that reality, forget not the fact that politics is the middle arena where facilitation is provided.

She should give up politics and head to hollywood, where she might not make more money in the long term, but might make a lot more in the short term; acting as the political villain or con(ness) that she is. She's of character that could never be trusted; very loyal to this profile. And that's material for hollywood.

Support This Site

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.

User login

Username: *

Password: *

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.